If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. ** If you are logged in, most ads will not be displayed. **

given my wintel64 Vista32 architecture and platform, i assume that i will use the x86_64-DVD issue to install fedora on a newly-created partition on a vacant secondary hdd. but how do i do it: do i first (.iso) burn to a DVD (and why)? and then what? why/when would i use the -Live; what would happen if i used the i686-Live? why is there no mention of GNOME?

The name of the image tells you what it contains:
the first Fedora image seems to be an alpha version of Fedora 12 and I won't suggest you to install it unless you feel suicidal. Other images are Fedora 11 as follows: DVD here means install-DVD and live self-explanatory that it's "live": it allows you to run the OS before installing. x86_64 means 64-bit x86 environment and i386 and i686 traditional 32-bit x86 environment.

Quite the same applies to others. There is no mention of Gnome because it's the default desktop environment for Fedora. KDE is offered as kind of "extra".

Of course it is more easy just to ask and let others answer but be aware that you could exercise some googling and searching by yourself. There aren't always people telling you what to do and there is plenty of information available about topics such as this. I don't mean to be rude nor is this discouragement to post here, I'm just telling it always helps to know how to find.

i was at first not going to respond to this because i felt that this forum should not be cluttered with something non-constructive; so i decided to interpret my response as constructive.

Your reponse was not constructive, whatever you think. Rather than do anything other than thank the volunteer who tried to answer your question at least in part, you should examine your own failings in asking the question.

You'll see in my signature a link to how you ideally should go about asking questions on a forum.

We have no idea what these files on your harddrive are. Who downloaded them? What does the file command tell you?

Of the dozens of distros I have downloaded, I have never seen one that was not either labeled distro.iso or distro.img.

If you take the Fedora example, and look on one of their mirrors, which I picked at random, you'll see the download is clearly labeled Fedora-12-x86_64-Live.iso. If you look back at the Fedora 11 release, it's the same.

People run a live environment for all sorts of reasons. To test the distro our on their machine, as a recovery disk, as a way to ensure they have a pristine environment everytime they boot up.

As for how to install, as said, the internet is full of guides for what to do, as well as pretty much every distro's website. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest you search for it. We see the question almost every day, we're not going to write an installation guide everytime someone asks. If you have a specific question about installation or a problem you're having, that is what you should ask.

Your response was not constructive, whatever you think. Rather than do anything other than thank the volunteer who tried to answer your question at least in part, you should examine your own failings in asking the question.

"my own failings" ==??

You'll see in my signature a link to how you ideally should go about asking questions on a forum.

relevance == specifically what?? someone of your credentials should not use ad hominem arguments, such as this seems to be.

We have no idea what these files on your harddrive are. Who downloaded them?

whom do you think downloaded them? to be constructive, you should have told me what's wrong with them -- that's they type of information that i sought n the first place.

Of the dozens of distros I have downloaded, I have never seen one that was not either labeled distro.iso or distro.img.

this is the first relevant, constructive piece that you have spouted. i note that the cub first responder apparently never even noticed this; so, kavakookamonga is learning something too!

so, what are you saying is wrong with these files? are you saying that they are not functional? in concrete terms, what about them?

If you take the Fedora example, and look on one of their mirrors, which I picked at random, you'll see the download is clearly labeled Fedora-12-x86_64-Live.iso. If you look back at the Fedora 11 release, it's the same.

As for how to install, as said, the internet is full of guides for what to do, as well as pretty much every distro's website.

It's perfectly reasonable to suggest you search for it.

problem is that these guides are written by the likes of you and kava...: enigmas ito conundrums. when you write intelligibly then i will read your guides.

we're not going to write an installation guide every time someone asks.

who asked you to write an installation guide? i asked you for what you eventually -- albeit, inadvertently -- did: you found that the files that i downloaded are non-functional.. but i still await the reason why. and what should they be? and how did i wind up with such erroneous files?

If you have a specific question about installation or a problem you're having, that is what you should ask.

relevance == specifically what?? someone of your credentials should not use ad hominem arguments, such as this seems to be.

I was not attacking you, I was being critical of your original post and saying you responded inappropriately to the person who tried to help you.

I trust and hope if you read the link in my sig, How to ask questions the smart way, you will understand why there was only one response to your post and that suggested you search the web.

In summary, again, we aren't magic. All you gave was some filenames on your harddrive. That's not enough information to tell you anything. Where did you download them from? Why did you choose those files? Obviously you are/were under the impression they are installable images. What gave you that impression? Have the files been renamed? What size are they? Again, what does the file command say about them?

You stated, "i already new the majority of your answer, and your response was not satiating for the remainder." What specifically did you want better clarification on?

An example problem question is "do i first (.iso) burn to a DVD (and why)?" This is very broad and I have no idea what you're actually looking for. An in depth explanation of what an iso is? The technical details of how a live cd works? Just a "yes, you burn it to a DVD or CD"? If you want more technical detail, what have you read yourself? What don't you understand?

problem is that these guides are written by the likes of you and kava...: enigmas ito conundrums. when you write intelligibly then i will read your guides.

Give a specific guide you're working from and what part you don't understand. You're giving me a generalization which is unanswerable.

Well, just have to say that I wouldn't bite hand which helps. If my answer wasn't satisfying, you could have said it wasn't and why instead of blaming me and reed9 because we can't just know what you are thinking and to what exactly you are wanting an answer.

Was asking to use your own brain that hard case? That kind of attitude isn't adviceable on a board like this. In the end, you were the one asking help, not us.